UMC Court Deals Defeat To Lesbian

The Judicial Council, the United Methodist Church's highest court, handed down another defeat to homosexual activists in the denomination yesterday, when it defrocked Beth Stroud, a lesbian minister from Pennsylvania, for violating the UMC ban on "self-avowed, practicing, homosexuals" in ordained ministry.

Originally posted by Repent62: The Judicial Council, the United Methodist Church's highest court, handed down another defeat to homosexual activists in the denomination yesterday, when it defrocked Beth Stroud, a lesbian minister from Pennsylvania, for violating the UMC ban on "self-avowed, practicing, homosexuals" in ordained ministry.

Are they starting to get the message...or is this just a temporary fix to a major problem?

Click to expand...

==Considering the direction of the United Methodist Church I would say it is "just a temporary fix to a major problem". The fact that this is even an issue with the UMC shows there are serious problems. The modern UMC is certainly far, far from the mighty John Wesley.

The UMC has a strict ban on practicing homosexuals as clergy. That ain't gonna change regardless of how many in the UMC wanna buck the system. The UMC Judicial Council clearly put its foot down here, that I suspect will get the UMC back to scriptural business instead of social business.

Site Supporter

They have a process, they used it and it worked. Why the hand ringing and gnashing of teeth? Does it bother you that she is still going to work at the church or what exactly is the issue now in your mind?

"==Considering the direction of the United Methodist Church I would say it is "just a temporary fix to a major problem". The fact that this is even an issue with the UMC shows there are serious problems. The modern UMC is certainly far, far from the mighty John Wesley."--------------------------------------------------

I agree!

"The UMC has a strict ban on practicing homosexuals as clergy. That ain't gonna change regardless of how many in the UMC wanna buck the system. The UMC Judicial Council clearly put its foot down here, that I suspect will get the UMC back to scriptural business instead of social business. "------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope so!

"That is our interpretation, and not a doctrinal absolute. Local Autonomy dictates that each church is permitted to decide such things for themselves. "------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Local autonomy is a hallmark of the SBC, but not all denominations. I thought the Methodist were more structured then that, and did not recoginize a local autonimy.

Originally posted by Bunyon:Local autonomy is a hallmark of the SBC, but not all denominations. I thought the Methodist were more structured then that, and did not recoginize a local autonimy.

Click to expand...

I don't think local autonomy is a biblical privilege dispensed only to baptists, though. I think it's reasonable to say that other denopminations, such as the UMC, has the autonomous liberty to decide interpretations for themselves and for their individual congregations.

Rather than letting her church decide the matter, the "main office" decided it for them.

Besides, I still don't care whether she is a lesbo or not. I also don't care if RCC priests are homos.

Since I believe that both are false doctrines anyway, what difference should more false doctrine in their midsts make to me?

I will tell you this, if another Primitive Baptist church decided to ordain a woman, we would withdraw fellowship from them and no longer recognize them as a true gospel church. That's all the authority we have, but I believe it is a great deal of authority when you look closely.

Sometimes I think it would be nice to decide which churches are allowed to use the name Primitive Baptist, seeing that there are different brands with the name who teach drastically different beliefs, but then I think that there might would come a day when somebody could decide that I couldn't use the name.

I'm glad to see the UMC taking a stand for something that is so obviously unbiblical, but that does not negate the fact that there are so many other false teachings in their churches that look obviously unbiblical to us.

Anyway, my point is, I think, whether you, or I, or Rev. Joshua, or the President of Methodism agrees with it or not, the bible clearly teaches that a woman is not suffered to teach (in church, that is) and that homosexuality is an abomination before God.

That is biblical truth, and I can only pray that I never get so far off in left field that I can no longer see that.

http://www.gbgm-umc.org/newman-umc/
Here's a picture of the front of our local Methodist church. It is on the national list of historical buildings and is truly beautiful. The gospel hasn't been preach in there in many years, and there have been a long line of woman, and non-believing men (or unwilling to stand for Christ) filling the pulpit. It's hayday was back in the 60's when the youth program was the largest in town. It still operates, but they don't come close to filling it.

1. There is no such thing as a celibate homosexual. Homosexuality is not something you are, it's something you do. If you ain't "doing it" then you ain't one.

2. This court proceding was all about the process used to defrock Ms. Stroud. It had absolutely nothing to do with the UMS position on homosexuality. In deciding against Sround, it in no way strengthened their view against homosexuality. And had they found the procedure for her removal to have been flawed, it would not have indicated an acceptance of her sin.

3. The UMC does believe in the autonomy of the church. However, they are structured differently than we (typical Baptist) and the district is seen as the local church. Much like a SBC mega-church with satelite campus'

There was another decision handed down by the UMC Judicial Counsel regarding homosexuality. A pastor in VA was placed on involuntary leave due to the fact that he refused to admit an openly gay man to church membership. The bishop stated that church membership had to be open to anyone who desired to become a member, while the pastor felt an openly sinful lifestyle prevented membership. The bishops decision was overturned and the pastor was placed back in his congregation. The ruling affirmed the local pastors ability take a moral stand against a homosexual lifestyle

Originally posted by Johnv: BTW, Bro James, don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the topic (forbidding female pastors is a requirement of SBC belief). But I do place high value a church's autonomy on such issues.

Click to expand...

Actually, it used to not be "a requirement" but a generally held belief. Before I am misquoted, let me say that I am in full agreement of the practicing homosexual being removed.